Chaya vs State of Maharashtra - Reserved Category Eligibility

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Relied by Party | Accepted by Court |
| Negatively Viewed by Court | |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 20, Cited by 0 ] ### Supreme Court of India

Chaya vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 March, 2026

Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 277
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CIVIL APPEAL NOS.         OF 2026
                        (@ SLP (C) Nos. 14517 - 14539 OF 2025)

        CHAYA & ORS. ETC.                               ... APPELLANTS
                                       VERSUS

        THE STATE OF
        MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ETC.                       … RESPONDENTS

                                   JUDGMENT ALOK ARADHE, J.

1.       Leave granted.
   

2.       These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated
   
          14.02.2025, passed by the High Court of Judicature at
   
          Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (High Court). The appellants
   
          belonging to reserved categories, had challenged the merit list
   
          dated 25.02.2024 prepared pursuant to Teachers Aptitude
   
          and Intelligence Test, 2022 (TAIT), conducted by Maharashtra
   
          State Council for Education (MSCE) for recruitment of
   
          teachers to the different schools of Zila Parishad, Municipal
   
          Corporations, Nagar Parishad and Private Managements. The
   
          High Court by impugned judgment has dismissed the writ
   
          petitions.
   

3. The appellants, though more meritorious, were excluded from

   the merit list dated 25.02.2024 on the ground that they had

   availed of relaxation in the qualifying marks in Teachers

   Eligibility Test (TET).

4. Various decisions of this Court have given rise to lengthy

   submissions before us. However, the controversy in the

   present batch of appeals lies in a narrow compass. The

   principal issue is whether candidates belonging to reserved

   categories, who have availed relaxation in a qualifying

   examination to become eligible for the main selection process,

   are entitled to migrate to the open/unreserved category on

   the basis of merit secured in the main examination.

   STATUTORY SCHEME

5. [The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,

   2009](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30032725/) (Act) is an Act to provide for free and compulsory

   education to children aged six to fourteen years. Section 23 of

   the Act stipulates that only persons possessing such

   minimum qualifications, as prescribed by an academic

   authority authorized by the Central Government, are eligible

   for appointment as teachers. The Central Government

   constituted the National Council for Teacher Education

(NCTE) on 23.08.2010 as the apex body to prescribe the

minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers. By

notification dated 23.08.2010, issued under Section 23(1) of

the Act, the NCTE prescribed the minimum qualifications for

appointment of teachers from class I to VIII, in a school

referred to in Section 2(n) of the Act and mandated

qualification in TET conducted by the appropriate

Government in accordance with its guidelines.

FACTS

1. The NCTE issued guidelines on 11.02.2011, for conducting

TET under the Act. Clause 9 of the guidelines prescribes the

qualifying marks for passing the test. The State of

Maharashtra by a Government Resolution dated 13.02.2013,

laid down the policy and procedure relating to recruitment of

teachers in the State. The aforesaid Resolution aligned the

recruitment process with the qualification prescribed by the

NCTE. Subsequent Government Resolutions dated

23.08.2013, 23.06.2017 and 10.11.2022 clarified procedural

aspects relating to recruitment, eligibility, implementation of

reservation, conduct of recruitment examination and

preparation of merit lists.

1. The MSCE issued a notification dated 31.01.2023 for

   conducting TAIT-2022, between 22.02.2023 to 03.03.2023.

   Para 5 of the aforesaid notification deals with eligibility of the

   candidates and Para 5.3 provides that candidates must

   possess required educational and professional qualification

   as per Government Resolution dated 07.02.2019 and

   clarifications dated 25.02.2019, 16.05.2019 and 12.06.2019

   and subsequent orders issued by the Government. Thus, the

   recruitment of the teachers was to be based on the marks

   obtained in TAIT. The appellants participated in the aforesaid

   examination. The merit list was published on 25.02.2024 on

   an online portal excluding their names despite securing

   higher marks than the last selected general category

   candidate.

2. The appellants submitted representations through an e-mail

   on 26.02.2024, which failed to evoke any response. They

   thereafter filed writ petitions challenging the merit list dated

   25.02.2024 and their exclusion from consideration under the

   open category.

3. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated

   14.02.2025, inter alia held that passing TET is a mandatory

   prerequisite for appointment as a teacher and is an integral

   component of the recruitment framework. It was further held

   that the relaxation granted in TET cannot be ignored while

   determining the eligibility to compete in the open category.

   Relying on the decision of this Court in [Government of (NCT

   of Delhi) & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.1](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7311815/), the High Court

   held that candidates availing of the benefit of relaxation

   cannot migrate to general category and permitting such

   migration would confer an unfair advantage over general

   category candidates. It was also held that appellants have no

   enforceable legal right to claim consideration in the open

   category after having availed relaxation in TET. Accordingly,

   the writ petitions were dismissed. In the aforesaid factual

   background, the appellants are before us.

   SUBMISSIONS

4. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that

   relaxation in a qualifying examination cannot bar migration

   to the open category, when merit in the main selection

   examination is higher. It was contended that the open

   category is a merit category and not a quota reserved for

   (2019) 10 SCC 120

   general candidates. It was urged that the High Court erred in

   mechanically applying the decision of this Court in [Pradeep

   Kumar](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7311815/) (supra) without appreciating the factual matrix, and

   the purpose of relaxation in eligibility is to create a level

   playing field, not to penalise merit. In support of the aforesaid

   submissions, the reliance has been placed on the decisions of

   this Court2.

5. Learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the other

   hand, contended that the recruitment process was conducted

   strictly in accordance with the applicable Government

   Resolutions. It was further submitted that TET is a

   mandatory eligibility requirement and candidates who

   qualified TET under relaxed standards cannot claim

   migration to the open category. It is urged that permitting

   such migration would amount to granting a double benefit of

   reservation. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance

   has been placed on the decision of this Court in [Pradeep

   Kumar](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7311815/) (supra).

Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.; (2010) 3 SCC 119, Vikas Sankhala & Ors. v.
Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.; (2017) 1 SCC 350, Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912, Saurav Yadav & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors.; (2021) 4 SCC 542, Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.; (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217,
Rajasthan High Court and Another v. Rajat Yadav and Others; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2931, Tej
Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.; (2025) 2 SCC 1, V. Lavanya & Ors. v. State
of Tamil Nadu; (2017) 1 SCC 322.

1. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused

the record.

RELAXATION IN ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA VS. MERIT
DETERMINATION

1. We may now advert to the decisions cited before us. In Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. (supra), a two-Judge Bench

considered recruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspectors and

Platoon Commanders in the PAC, Uttar Pradesh. Under Section 8(1) of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for SC,

ST and OBC) Act, 1994, candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC

were granted fee waiver and age relaxation of five years. The

selection comprised a preliminary test, physical test, main

written examination, and interview, with uniform standards

for all candidates. Reserved category candidates securing

higher marks than the last selected candidate were appointed

against unreserved vacancies. The challenge by general

category candidates-that availing any concession disqualifies

a candidate from competing for unreserved vacancies-was

rejected. This Court held that concessions granted in fee and

age to the candidates belonging to the reserved category

merely enable their entry into the zone of consideration and

cannot be treated as relaxation in the standard prescribed for

qualifying the written examination. It was further held that

such relaxation does not affect inter se merit which is to be

determined solely on the basis of performance in the written

examination and interview.

PERMISSIBILITY OF RELAXATION WITH LIMITED
WEIGHTAGE

1. In Vikas Sankhala (supra), this Court upheld relaxation of

TET qualifying marks by 10-20% for reserved categories as a

valid measure of affirmative action. It was noticed that

Circulars issued by the State Government dated 04.03.2002

permitted reserved category candidates to be counted against

unreserved category vacancies, if in the selection they had

secured more marks than the marks obtained by the last

selected unreserved category candidate irrespective of the fact

whether or not they had availed of special concessions. It was

further held that since TET carried only 20% weightage in the

final merit, lower TET scores resulted in proportionately lower

weightage. Thus, a level playing field was maintained with no

concession in the ultimate selection. Therefore, migration to

the unreserved category was held permissible where reserved

category candidates were more meritorious. Paras 80, 82 and

83 of the aforesaid decision are extracted below for the facility

of reference: -

“80. Having regard to the respective
submissions noted above, first aspect that
needs consideration is as to whether
relaxation in TET pass marks would amount
to concession in the recruitment process.
The High Court has held to be so on the
premise that Para 9(a) dealing with such
relaxation in TET marks forms part of the
document which relates to the recruitment
procedure. It is difficult to accept this
rationale or analogy. Passing of TET
examination is a condition of eligibility for
appointment as a teacher. It is a necessary
qualification without which a candidate is
not eligible to be considered for appointment.
This was clearly mentioned in the
Guidelines/Notification dated 11-2-2011.
These Guidelines pertain to conducting of
TET; basic features whereof have already
been pointed out above. Even Para 9 which
provides for concessions that can be given to
certain reserved categories deals with
“qualifying marks” that is to be obtained in
TET examination. Thus, a person who passes
TET examination becomes eligible to
participate in the selection process as and
when such selection process for filling up of
the posts of primary teachers is to be
undertaken by the State. On the other hand,
when it comes to recruitment of teachers, the
method for appointment of teachers is
altogether different. Here, merit list of
successful candidates is to be prepared on
the basis of marks obtained under different
heads. One of the heads is “marks in TET”.
So far as this head is concerned, 20% of the
marks obtained in TET are to be assigned to
each candidate. Therefore, those reserved

category candidates who secured lesser
marks in TET would naturally get less marks
under this head. We would like to
demonstrate it with an example: Suppose a
reserved category candidate obtains 53
marks in TET, he is treated as having
qualified TET. However, when he is
considered for selection to the post of
primary teacher, in respect of allocation of
marks he will get 20% marks for TET. As
against him, a general candidate who
secures 70 marks in TET shall be awarded
14 marks in recruitment process. Thus, on
the basis of TET marks reserved category
candidate has not got any advantage while
considering his candidature for the post. On
the contrary, “level-playing field” is
maintained whereby a person securing
higher marks in TET, whether belonging to
general category or reserved category, is
allocated higher marks in respect of 20% of
TET marks. Thus, in recruitment process no
weightage or concession is given and
allocation of 20% of TET marks is applied
across the board. Therefore, the High Court
is not correct in observing that concession
was given in the recruitment process on the
basis of relaxation in TET.

XXX XXX XXX

1. In [Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 119 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 772] , this Court has very categorically held that relaxations given in educational qualifications, etc. making a person eligible to participate in selection process would not be treated as availing benefits in the recruitment/employment and the benefits envisaged have to be those which have direct relation to recruitment/employment and are relatable to the jovial relationship of

employer and employee. It is also clarified
that such benefits must occur from and
should be post “level-playing field”. We would
like to reproduce the following discussion
from the said judgment touching upon the
aforesaid aspects: (SCC pp. 138 & 146-47,
paras 48-49 & 75)
“48. In view of the aforesaid facts, we
are of the considered opinion that
the submissions of the appellants
that relaxation in fee or age would
deprive the candidates belonging to
the reserved category of an
opportunity to compete against the
general category candidates is
without any foundation. It is to be
noticed that the reserved category
candidates have not been given any
advantage in the selection process.
All the candidates had to appear in
the same written test and face the
same interview. It is therefore quite
apparent that the concession in fee
and age relaxation only enabled
certain candidates belonging to the
reserved category to fall within the
zone of consideration. The
concession in age did not in any
manner tilt the balance in favour of
the reserved category candidates, in
the preparation of final merit/select
list.

1. It is permissible for the State in view of Articles 14 , 15 , 16 and 38 of the Constitution of India to make suitable provisions in law to eradicate the disadvantages of candidates belonging to socially and educationally backward classes.

Reservations are a mode to achieve
the equality of opportunity

guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the
Constitution of India. Concessions
and relaxations in fee or age
provided to the reserved category
candidates to enable them to
compete and seek benefit of
reservation, is merely an aid to
reservation. The concessions and
relaxations place the candidates on a
par with general category
candidates. It is only thereafter the
merit of the candidates is to be
determined without any further
concessions in favour of the reserved
category candidates.

---

1. In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the “level-playing field”. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age or the concession in fee would in any manner be infringement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India.

These concessions are provisions
pertaining to the eligibility of a
candidate to appear in the
competitive examination. At the time
when the concessions are availed,
the open competition has not
commenced. It commences when all
the candidates who fulfil the
eligibility conditions, namely,
qualifications, age, preliminary
written test and physical test are
permitted to sit in the main written
examination. With age relaxation
and the fee concession, the reserved
candidates are merely brought
within the zone of consideration, so

           that they can participate in the open
           competition on merit. Once the
           candidate participates in the written
           examination, it is immaterial as to
           which    category,   the    candidate
           belongs. All the candidates to be
           declared eligible had participated in
           the preliminary test as also in the
           physical test. It is only thereafter
           that successful candidates have
           been permitted to participate in the
           open competition.”

1. It is stated at the cost of repetition that provision of giving 20% marks of TET score was applied to all candidates irrespective of the category to which he/she belongs and, therefore, no concession or relaxation or advantage or benefit was given in this behalf which could disturb the level-playing field and tilt advantage in respect of reserved category candidate. On the contrary, the reserved category candidates who had secured less marks in TET examination are given lesser marks in the recruitment process on the application of the formula of allocating 20% marks of TET score. Question (iii) is answered accordingly.”

NON-MIGRATION WHERE RELAXATION AFFECTS MERIT

1. In Pradeep Kumar (supra), a three-Judge Bench considered

whether candidates qualifying CTET with relaxed marks from

the States other than Delhi could compete for unreserved

vacancies for recruitment of Special Education Teachers in

NCT of Delhi. The essential qualifications prescribed for

  passing the CTET Test was to secure a minimum of 60%

  marks in CTET. The respondents who were the candidates

  belonging to OBC category and were from outside Delhi and

  neither had OBC certificates issued by NCT of Delhi nor

  fulfilled the essential eligibility criteria for passing the CTET

  with 60% marks, were seeking consideration under the open

  category. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, inter alia held

  that the respondents did not fulfil the essential eligibility

  criteria in as much as they neither had the OBC certificates

  issued by NCT of Delhi nor had passed the CTET with 60%

  marks. Therefore, they could not be considered against the

  vacancies of Special Education Teachers of open category. This Court distinguished the decision in [Vikas Sankhala](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101733098/) (supra) and held that migration of such candidates to open

  category is impermissible.

PRIMACY OF RECRUITMENT RULES GOVERNING
MIGRATION

1. In Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy3, the Staff Selection

   Commission published a notification for recruitment of

   Constables (GD) in various para- military forces like BSF,

   CRPF, ITBP etc. and Rifleman in Assam Rifles. The

   2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943.

respondents who belonged to Other Backward Class category,

had availed the benefit of age relaxation to participate in the

selection process. The respondents claimed consideration

against the unreserved category seats on the ground that

they had secured more marks than the last selected general

category candidate. The Central Government issued Office

Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 which provided that only

when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting a reserved

category candidate, for example, in the age limit, experience,

qualification, permitted number of chances in the written

examination, such candidates will be counted against

reserved vacancies. A two-Judge Bench of this Court,

therefore, held that whether a reserved category candidate,

who has availed of relaxed standard can migrate to and be

recruited against unreserved category seats, depends solely

on specific recruitment rules or employment notification.

APPLICABILITY OF TET TO MINORITY INSTITUTIONS

1. Another two-Judge Bench of this Court in [Anjuman Ishaat-e-

   Taleem Trust](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/148756398/) (supra) dealt with the issue of applicability of

   TET to minority education institutions and whether

   qualifying the TET exam is a mandatory prerequisite for

   recruitment of teachers as well as promotion of teachers. The

   Court referred the correctness of the view taken in [Pramati

   Educational and Cultural Trust (Registered) & Ors. v.

   Union of India4](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32468867/), which held that TET will not apply to

   minority educations, for consideration to larger Bench.

   EFFECT OF EXPRESS BAR IN RULES ON MIGRATION

2. In Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors.5, a two-Judge Bench of

   this Court dealt with a claim of a reserved category candidate

   who had availed of relaxation in preliminary examination of

   Indian Forest Service and was placed higher in merit than

   unreserved candidate in the final merit list on the basis of

   marks obtained in main examination and personality test, to

   be treated as general merit candidate for the purpose of cadre

   allocation. A Bench of this Court, taking note of Rule 14(ii) of

   the Examination Rules, 2013 which provided that if a

   candidate has found place in the merit list without availing

   relaxed standard, at any stage of the examination, they shall

   not be adjusted against the reserved vacancy. Therefore, it

   was held that the respondents who had availed of relaxed

   standards in the preliminary examination were not entitled to

   (2014) 8 SCC 1

   2026 INSC 15

   migrate to general category vacancies on the basis of marks

   obtained in the main examination. However, decision of this

   Court in Vikas Sankhala (supra) was not taken note of.

   LEGAL PRINCIPLES

3. From the aforesaid decisions, the following legal principles

   can be culled out: -

(i) A concession/relaxation in a qualifying examination

merely enables entry of a candidate into the zone of

consideration and cannot be treated as relaxation in

the standard prescribed for qualifying the written

examination if such relaxation does not affect the

merit which has to be determined solely on the basis

of performance in the main examination and the

interview, if any.

(ii) A relaxation or concession in the qualifying

examination merely creates a level playing field

where no concession or relaxation is granted in the

ultimate selection and the same is solely made on

the basis of inter se merit.

(iii) If a candidate belonging to a reserved category, does

not fulfil the essential eligibility criteria prescribed

for a selection, he/she cannot be permitted to

migrate to an open category.

(iv) Migration of a reserved category candidate who has

availed of a concession/relaxation in qualifying

examination depends on the Recruitment Rules or

the employment notification. If such Recruitment

Rules or employment notification permits such

migration, the same is permissible.

(v) Such migration shall also be permissible if the

Recruitment Rules or employment notification are

either silent or do not expressly prohibit it.
ANALYSIS

1. We may now advert to the facts of the present batch of

appeals. The NCTE issued guidelines on 11.02.2011, for

conducting TET. Para 9 of the aforesaid guidelines prescribes

the qualifying marks for passing the TET. Para 9 reads as

under: -

“Qualifying marks

1. A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET pass. School managements (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided)

(a) may consider giving concessions to
persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently
abled persons, etc., in accordance with their
extant reservation policy;

(b) should give weightage to the TET scores
in the recruitment process; however,
qualifying the TET would not confer a right
on any person for recruitment/employment
as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for
appointment.”

The qualifying marks for passing the TET for candidates

belonging to general categories, were fixed at 60%. However,

the State Government, Local Bodies, Government aided and

unaided institutions were granted the liberty to grant

concessions to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes,

Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and differently

abled persons etc. in accordance with extant reservation

policy. Thus, relaxation in TET marks is expressly permitted

by NCTE.

1. The Government of Maharashtra under the authority granted

to it by NCTE guidelines on 13.02.2013, passed a resolution

for granting relaxation in qualifying criteria in TET to

reserved category candidates. Clause 3 of the aforesaid

Resolution reads as under: -

“3. Relaxation in Eligibility Percentage:

A relaxation of 5% in the minimum qualifying
marks will be provided to candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST),
Denotified and Nomadic Tribes (DNT), Other
Backward Classes (OBC), Persons with Disabilities
(PwD), and other specified categories.”
22. Another Government Resolution dated 23.08.2013, was

issued by Government of Maharashtra regarding

determination of procedure for TET. Clause 7 of the aforesaid

Resolution also provides for relaxation in qualifying criteria

and reads as under: -

“7. Candidates securing a minimum of 60%
marks in the test will be considered as having
passed. For candidates - belonging to
Scheduled Castes (SC). Scheduled Tribes (ST),
Denotified and Nomadic Tribes (DNT), Special
Backward Classes (SBC), Other Backward
Classes (OBC), and Persons with Disabilities
(PwD), the minimum qualifying marks will be
55%.”
Thus, it is evident that the minimum qualifying marks for

candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled

Tribes (ST), Denotified and Nomadic Tribes (DNT), Other

Backward Classes (OBC), Persons with Disabilities (PwD),

and other specified categories for passing the TET is 55%.
23. Thereafter, Government of Maharashtra issued another

resolution dated 23.06.2017, for establishing a transparent

process for recruitment of teachers in government managed

schools in the State through the computerized system i.e.,

PORTAL for Visible to All Teacher Recruitment. Clause 7 of

the aforesaid resolution prescribes the eligibility for Aptitude

Test which is extracted below: -

“7. Eligibility for the Aptitude Test:

For teacher positions from Class 1 to Class 8,
candidates possessing the educational and
professional qualifications prescribed under
the Maharashtra Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, and
who have cleared the Teacher Eligibility
Test (TET), will be eligible for the aptitude
test.

For teacher positions from Class 9 to Class
12, candidates possessing the educational
and professional qualifications prescribed
under the said rules will be eligible for the
examination.”
24. The Government of Maharashtra passed yet another

resolution dated 07.02.2019, regarding establishment of

transparent process for the recruitment of teachers in

government-managed schools in the State. The relevant

extract of the aforesaid resolution reads as under: -

“Government Resolution: In all local self-
government institutions and private
management-aided, partially aided, non-
aided, and eligible-for-aid primary, upper
primary, secondary, higher secondary schools,
night schools, as well as government and
aided teacher training colleges (D.L.Ed.
Colleges) in the state, while filling vacant
teaching positions, all candidates shall be
given an equal opportunity for selection. To
ensure the selection of high-quality
candidates for the position of Education
Servant, the recruitment of Education
Servants will be based on the marks obtained
in the "Eligibility and Aptitude Test." However,
private educational institutions will make the
final selection of Education Servants from
among the candidates who have secured the
highest marks in the Eligibility and Aptitude
Test, based on an interview.

1. The Government Resolutions dated 30.04.2008 and 16.12.2009, regarding the recruitment of teachers in schools under local self-government institutions through the Centralized Recruitment Pre-Selection Test, as well as the Government Resolutions dated 23.06.2017 and 20.06.2018 regarding recruitment through the transparent system, are hereby superseded. Any provisions in previously issued Government Resolutions or circulars that are inconsistent with the present Government Resolution are hereby cancelled.”
2. The Commissioner (Education), Government of Maharashtra

by a communication dated 25.02.2024, issued to the

Education Officers, commissioners municipal corporations,

chief executive officer of zila parishad, chief officer of

municipal councils/Nagar Panchayats and

Chairman/Secretary of concerned private educational

institutions prescribed guidelines for verification of

documents for TAIT, 2022 selection list. Para 18 of the

aforesaid communication reads as under: -

“18. As per the judgment dated 24/10/2019
in Special Leave Petition No. 11254/2019 by
the Honorable Supreme Court of India, New
Delhi, if a candidate from a reserved category
has availed of relaxation in eligibility criteria
to qualify for the examination, such a
candidate shall be eligible for selection under
their original category. However, if a reserved
category candidate has qualified without
availing of any relaxation and is eligible for
selection under the open category based on
the final merit evaluation, they may be
included in the open category. Accordingly,
candidates from reserved categories who
availed of relaxation in the Teacher Eligibility
Test have been considered eligible for
selection under their respective categories,
while reserved category candidates who did
not avail of any relaxation have been
considered eligible for selection under the

open category based on their position in the
merit list. Kindly note this.”
26. Paras 6 and 7 of Teacher Recruitment Notification dated

26.02.2024, reads as under: -

“6. In the context of the following matter, the
facts are as follows: In the Special Leave
Petition No. 11254/2019 filed before the
Honorable Supreme Court, New Delhi, in
Civil Appeal No. 8259/2019, the judgment
delivered on 24/10/2019 states that if a
candidate belonging to a reserved category
has availed the benefit of relaxation in
eligibility criteria provided for that particular
reserved category, such a candidate is not
eligible for consideration in the unreserved
(open) category.
7. The Government of India's memorandums
dated 01/07/1998 and 04/04/2018 also
stipulate that if a candidate has availed of
relaxation, they cannot be considered for the
open category. However, if a reserved
category candidate qualifies on merit without
availing of any relaxation, they can be
considered for the open category. In various
recruitments of the State Government, such
as Talathi recruitment and recruitments for
various posts in the Rural Development
Department, it is provided that if a candidate
from a reserved category qualifies for the
open category without availing relaxation in
age limit or other educational and
professional qualifications, they can be
considered for selection in the open category;
otherwise, they shall be considered for

         selection in their respective reserved
         category. These and other prevailing
         provisions      have       been     taken    into
         consideration. Since TET is a qualifying
         examination for this teacher recruitment, if
         any candidate has passed the TET by
         availing relaxation, even if they have scored
         higher marks in the TAIT examination, they
         have been included in their respective
         reserved category as per the various court
         judgments        and       government     orders.

Therefore, the difference in the cut-off marks
is visible, but it is entirely lawful.”

1. Clause 9 of the Guidelines issued by NCTE dated 11.02.2011,

for conducting TET, itself empowers the State Government to

provide concession to persons belonging to reserved

categories and differently abled persons. The State

Government on 13.02.2013 has passed a Resolution. Clauses

1 and 2 of the aforesaid Resolution prescribe the educational

and professional qualifications for teachers and passing of

TET is mandatory. Clause 3 thereof only provides relaxation

to the extent of 5% for the candidate belonging to reserved

category and persons with disability for passing TET. A

candidate belonging to reserved category must have an

educational and professional qualification like any other

candidate for appearing in TET and only relaxation which has

been granted is in respect of qualifying marks to the extent of

5%. Thus, a candidate belonging to the general category has

to secure 60% marks to pass TET whereas a candidate

belonging to the reserved category or a differently abled

person has to secure 55% marks.

1. The Government of Maharashtra by Resolution dated

   07.02.2019 has provided that selection list will be based on

   the marks in TAIT. Therefore, it is axiomatic that relaxation

   in one of the conditions of securing 60% marks in qualifying

   examination i.e. TET only enables the reserved category

   candidates to participate in the main examination i.e. TAIT.

   Such relaxation only creates a level playing field. The inter se

   merit for appointment has to be determined solely on the

   basis of the performance in the main examination i.e. TAIT.

   No relaxation or concession has been granted to reserved

   category candidates in the main examination i.e. TAIT and

   their merit has been evaluated at par with general category

   candidates.

2. It is pertinent to note that MSCE issued a notification dated

   31.01.2023 for conducting TAIT-2022, online examination

   between 22.02.2023 to 03.03.2023. The State Government

has not prescribed any prohibition with regard to migration of

such reserved category candidates who have secured more

marks than the general category candidates to the open

category. However, the Commissioner (Education),

Government of Maharashtra issued a communication, on

25.02.2024 i.e., the day on which merit list was published

referring to decision of this Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra)

and mentioned that candidates from reserved categories who

availed of relaxation in the Teacher Eligibility Test have been

considered eligible for selection under their respective

categories, while reserved category candidates who did not

avail of any relaxation have been considered eligible for

selection under the open category based on their position in

the merit list. Similarly, in the instructions dated 26.02.2024

relating to recruitment process and implementation of merit

list, similar stand was taken on the basis of the decision of

this Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra).

1. It is pertinent to note that the decision of this Court in

Pradeep Kumar has no application to the obtaining factual

matrix for the reason that decision in Pradeep Kumar (supra)

is an authority for the proposition that in case candidates

belonging to reserved category do not fulfil the essential

eligibility condition, they cannot be permitted to be appointed

against the general vacancies. In Pradeep Kumar (supra), the

respondents neither belonged to the Other Backward

Category notified by NCT of Delhi nor fulfilled the essential

eligibility condition of securing 60% marks in CTET.

1. In the instant case, the requirement of obtaining 60% marks

in TET is not an essential eligibility condition as the

guidelines issued by the NCTE itself permits such relaxation.

Such relaxation only enables a candidate belonging to

reserved category to participate in TAIT. The inter se merit of

the candidates including the respondents has solely been

determined on the basis of performance in TAIT. Therefore,

the Commissioner (Education), Government of Maharashtra

erred in placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra) and in issuing the consequential

directions for preparation of the merit list. The Commissioner

(Education) ought to have appreciated that Office

Memorandum dated 04.04.2018 issued by Government of

India (Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension)

applies in direct recruitments to Central Government jobs

and services and, therefore, could not have been relied upon. The High Court also erred in placing reliance on the decision

of this Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra).

1. The appellants who admittedly are more meritorious than the

last selected candidate under the general category, cannot be

excluded from consideration under the general category, in

the absence of any express prohibition in the Recruitment

Rules/notification. The relaxation in qualifying criteria only

affects eligibility and not merit and migration is permissible

in the absence of any prohibition. The decisions of this Court

in Pradeep Kumar (supra), [Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib

Roy](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90753496/) (supra) and Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors. (supra)

have no application to the obtaining factual matrix of these

appeals, whereas, decisions of this Court in [Jitendra Kumar

Singh](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1393954/) (supra) and Vikas Sankhala (supra) apply to the facts

of these appeals. The appellants are entitled to migrate to

general category.

CONCLUSION

1. For the foregoing reasons, impugned judgment dated

14.02.2025, is quashed and set aside. The respondents shall

include in the merit list, those appellants who have secured

marks higher than the last selected candidate in the general

category.

1. The case of the petitioners in various Interlocutory

   Applications, namely I.A. Nos.271407/2026, 61615/2026,

   52532/2026, 271407/2025 and 6309/2026 filed in SLP (C)

   Nos. 14517/2025, 14521, 14529-14530, 14532-14533/2025

   and 14517-14539/2025 respectively, filed for impleadment

   are identical to the appellants. Therefore, the petitioners in

   the aforesaid impleadment applications are impleaded as

   appellants in these appeals. The applications for

   impleadments are allowed.

2. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. There shall be no order

   as to costs.

…..…….……………….………….……….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

                          …..…….……………….………….……….J.
                          [ALOK ARADHE]

 NEW DELHI;

MARCH 23, 2026.